There are ways to leave Iraq and avoid disaster. And then, there’s rank stupidity:

President Bush vetoed the Iraq-war spending bill this evening, calling it a blueprint for failure and defeat and intensifying a showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

â€œIt makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing,â€ Mr. Bush said at the White House, where he vetoed the bill after the signatures of Democratic legislative leaders were barely dry.

The president said the bill would demoralize the Iraqis and send them and the world a terrible message: â€œAmerica will not keep its commitments.â€

The President may be in for a rather rude surprise when it comes to what exactly would constitute keeping our “commitments” in Iraq. Perhaps he should be jawboning the Iraqi government into keeping their commitments to us – i.e., this is round one in a ten round bout and while he holds the upper hand today, upon each successive revisiting of this issue, it will become more and more apparent that the Iraqi government has no intention of keeping their promises made to him and to the United States to achieve much of anything in the way of reconciling their war torn and riven country.

What this will do to his “veto-proof” GOP firewall is uncertain. Judging by the nervousness of many Republican lawmakers who wish to see at least some political benchmarks laid out for the Iraqi government to achieve as part of the funding bill, my guess is that unless their is a sea change in the attitude of the Iraqi government, GOP desertions will become significant after the first of the year.

Good to see the Iraqi Parliament taking our efforts to tamp down the violence so seriously; they’re going on vacation for two months in July and August. And Prime Minister Maliki is proving himself quite the reliable ally – at least for Mookie al-Sadr and his band of cutthroats. He’s cashiered a few generals who actually took him at his word when he said he wanted to rein in the Shia militias who are causing a lot of the sectarian bloodshed.

Maliki is a practiced liar – and an empty suit of a Prime Minister as well. He and his Shia brethren in his ruling coalition can read the writing on the wall as well as anyone in this country; that the closer we get to the 2008 election, the better the chances that any veto of the Democrat’s invitation to al Qaeda to initiate a bloodbath in Iraq will be overridden with the help of an increasing number of Republican legislators who see the War as a political millstone around the party’s neck not to mention a sure fire roadmap to the unemployment line for them. (The latter reason uppermost in their greedy little minds, I’m sure.)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my dwindling number of readers, might I suggest that the President face this reality and sit down with the Democrats in order to come to some kind of an agreement about the future of our mission in Iraq? It may be old fashioned in this day and age to talk about “the good of the country” but that’s just me, I guess – A fat old codger who can remember when lawmakers took the political adage “Politics stops at the waters edge” seriously. Of course, I’m also old enough to remember when that compact between the parties was shattered. The political ghosts of Viet Nam still haunt this country and unless we can find our way back to a sensible, rational means for the two branches to co-exist and come together on the goals and troop requirements needed for this war, I fear that the disaster that is staring us in the face will almost certainly come about much to the detriment of our interests in the Middle East and our efforts in the War on Terror (or whatever we’re going to be calling it once the Democrats admit we need to fight one).

Even a successful surge – and it is showing signs of success in important ways – will fail to bring about the desired political results that would give us the victory all of us want but is looking more and more impossible to achieve. The recalcitrant Iraqi government seems perfectly content to expend American lives to increase their own legitimacy with the Iraqi people as the violence begins to subside while not doing what is necessary to validate our men’s sacrifices by bringing the warring factions together in order to form a viable state.

So the President’s veto of this bill will not be overridden. And the two sides will sit down and probably come to a compromise agreement that will fund the troops for a very limited time – perhaps 3 months if reports are accurate – with the Democrats abandoning their formal invitation to our enemies setting a date certain for the al-Qaeda/militia bloodbath to begin in earnest. Instead, the withdrawal timetable will be advisory only, thus encouraging our jihadi friends to simply watch, wait, and keep their powder dry and their swords sharpened.

Needless to say, we can’t go on like this. But we will. And when the dust settles from this political row, we can look forward to another Congressional food fight to break out when we revisit the issue in the fall.

Where all this leads is clear. Piece together a string of demonstrably false “facts on the ground” from a suitably safe remove, and you’re left with a scenario where we can walk away from Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. You don’t need to watch terrified Iraqis pleading for American forces to stay put in their neighborhoods. You don’t need to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which anticipates that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will end in catastrophe. Why, in the serene conviction that things are the other way around, you don’t even need to read at all. Chances are, your congressman doesn’t either.

2

john gilmore Said:
7:28 am

Rick——1—I too am very fustrated by the POTUS not out there constantly to present his case—-Is this a “brillant Rovian plan” or incompetence. 2—-Is POTUS in back channels cracking down on Maliki? 3—-When my Father, a ardent conservative,, just rakes Bush over the coals and sounds as if he is a Kos type’ I know that POTUS support has dissapated to the point of being nonexistant 4——I totally support what and why we went in there but If they don”t(iraqi’s) do not support what we are attempting to give them a chance to do, then we must decide what our best interests are vis a vie Iran and al-queda are and facilitate those 5—what do you mean’dwindling readers’ Are we becoming like the leftists and destroy our own if they do not toe the line?—-Keep your chin up! Its not a matter of whether I agree or disagree, but whether I have been stimulated to THINK-Thanx

President George W. Bush will not support a war spending bill that punishes the Iraqi government for…

4

2 cents Said:
8:08 am

You imply your readership is dwindling as a result of your current viewpoint. Such is the pity if true. I consider myself on the right side of the debate, but I also cannot understand why the Whitehouse isn’t being more public with direct and sustained pressure on Maliki? They may be doing so in private, but in the current climate, this needs to be made public. After all, I think that even Maliki would benefit from some of the wiggle room he needs by pointing out that the big bad US is “forcing me to do this and that”.

Anyway, I for one appreciate this issue being discussed somewhere on the right side of the blogosphere, if only on your site, because it certainly isn’t being honestly examined by the others that should know better. They (Powerline, Captains, etc) all claim they don’t support Republicans as a default on every single issue, but only the WOT. However, the lack of support for a basic requirement of benchmarks is Bush’s call, and to support something that doesn’t make sense is the very definition of towing the party line (a la Democrats)

5

Richard Bottoms Said:
8:23 am

The recalcitrant Iraqi government seems perfectly content to expend American lives to increase their own legitimacy with the Iraqi people as the violence begins to subside while not doing what is necessary to validate our menâ€™s sacrifices by bringing the warring factions together in order to form a viable state.

Amazingly, some people realize this.

They are mostly called Democrats.

6

ME Said:
8:31 am

“AL QAEDA TO SLAUGHTER IRAQIS”

You’re kidding right? I mean, you aren’t seriously arguing that the danger in leaving Iraq lies behind what Qaeda would do?

Of course not, because given the facts, that would be an insane argument.

But you certainly implied it in your headline.

7

Rick Moran Said:
8:35 am

What exactly do you think al-Qaeda has been doing these last few months exploding car bombs and suicide bombs in Shia markets, Shia shrines, Shia funerals, etc. and then turning around and doing the same thing to the Sunnis?

They want chaos. They need chaos. They have made no secret of the fact that once we leave, they wish to turn Iraq into the Somalia of the Middle East, giving them a safe haven from which to strike western interests.

8

Rick Moran Said:
9:06 am

MadMatt:

The way things work at this site is that you read the post first, then comment.

Come back after you’ve read what I’ve written…

9

Fight4TheRight Said:
9:06 am

ME’s comment totally defines the great divide here in the U.S. on the Iraq War.

Harry Reid and the gang of Ostriches simply do not believe Al Qaeda is the problem in Iraq. They do not fear what Al Qaeda would do if U.S. Troops withdraw.

The POTUS along with the majority of the Repubs have recognized what Al Qaeda has done to constantly intensify the conflicts of this war. Our military leaders on the ground just called Al Qaeda in Iraq “Public Enemy #1.”

Every single MAJOR bombing in Iraq in the past two months has been engineered and executed by Al Qaeda. Shia militia murders and death squads have become almost non-existent and Sunni insurgents have turned their attention to hunting Al Qaeda who betrayed them.

ME…you stated, ” Of course not, because given the facts, that would be an insane argument” My suggestion is you quit being lazy, read up on the real facts of this War (and no, i don’t mean Right blogs or Administration briefings) – look up all of the latest daily reports and find out for yourself who is behind the attacks on Iraqis AND U.S. Troops.

[...] Somebody call 911. We have not had major military operations in the same sense of the invasion? Our soldiers simply dying at a high rate must be a minor thing. How long does the White House think the American people will put up with this habit? Meanwhile the Iraqi Parliament has taken note of Bush’s summertime work habits and will take July and August off. Before Bush takes off for another snooze, he will be happy to meet with Democrats to compromise, just so long as the Democrats do all the compromising. Put the pipe down, George. [...]

11

Drongo Said:
9:17 am

“The recalcitrant Iraqi government seems perfectly content to expend American lives to increase their own legitimacy with the Iraqi people as the violence begins to subside while not doing what is necessary to validate our menâ€™s sacrifices by bringing the warring factions together in order to form a viable state.”

Well, yes. You’re being used. By a bunch of murderous, corrupt, Anti-American Islamists. Your troops are being killed in order to support those same Islamists. Your billions are being squandered in supporting these Islamists. They don’t want peace with the Sunnis, they want dominion over the Sunnis and, with any luck, the destruction of the Sunnis as a political or military force. They don’t have to compromise because they’ve got you to enforce their position.

They aren’t your friends you know…

“They have made no secret of the fact that once we leave, they wish to turn Iraq into the Somalia of the Middle East, giving them a safe haven from which to strike western interests.”

And the Sunni Insurgent groups will slaughter them in their hundreds in ways much too direct for a democracy to stomach.

Like all loose guerrila coalitions, once the central focus of the occupation forces have gone they will fall to fighting amongst themselves and when they do Al-Q will be the decided underdog. The marriage between Sunni insurgents and Wahhabi Nutcases is one of convinience only, not of ideology.

After all, it is pretty clear that Al-Q (the actual Al-Q, not the brand awareness imports in Iraq) is happily sitting in Pakistan training up young radicalised idiots and dreaming of their coming glory.

12

Rick Moran Said:
9:23 am

Drongo:

Why do you feel the need to exaggerate? The situation is bad enough without wild charges of “anti-American Islamists” running the Iraqi government. Maliki is no “Islamist” and isn’t even a closet “anti-American” – not in the way that al-Sadr or Akim are who are the true anti American Islamists and whose influence on the government has waxed and waned over time (currently waning).

And maybe you missed it but the insurgents (tribal militias) and AQ have been at odds for about a year and rarely coordinate strategy or attacks any more. The Baathists still use AQ infrastructure but keep an arms length arrangement with them (according to the latest intel I’ve read).

In short – things are bad enough without having to hyperbolize the situation.

13

Drongo Said:
9:43 am

“My suggestion is you quit being lazy, read up on the real facts of this War (and no, i donâ€™t mean Right blogs or Administration briefings) â€“ look up all of the latest daily reports and find out for yourself who is behind the attacks on Iraqis AND U.S. Troops.”

and tell me which ones were Al-Q, which ones were Sunni insurgents and which ones were Shiite militias (in and out of government).

What’s that you say? You can’t?

And that’s a small cross section of what is happening in Iraq today, not a total picture. No-one knows the total picture. What we do know is that the vast majority of attacks in Iraq are on military targets. It is just that the ones against civilian targets produce bigger body counts.

“Shia militia murders and death squads have become almost non-existent and Sunni insurgents have turned their attention to hunting Al Qaeda who betrayed them.”

Almost non-existent? You are living in a bit of a fantasyland there, aren’t you? The fact that the JAM has gone into civvy mode doesn’t mean that they aren’t there, and the bodies continue to turn up all around the county with the ubiquitous drill holes, 15 in Bagdhad, 10 in Baquba, who knows how many around the country.

I don’t say this because I like it (I don’t) but too many people have been going around with the heads in the sand pretending that things are not as they are over there and it is time to wake up.

(And, on a related note, as ethnic cleansing progresses in an area of course you will see less sectarian violence, as there are less people to cleanse. Hell, if you wanted to make it quiet and could put up with a really bloody month, you could reduce sectarian violence to 0 by just killing every Sunni in Bagdhad)

14

Rick Moran Said:
9:56 am

Drongo:

Sorry, no link but Centcom pegs the percentage of casualties caused by AQ at 70-30. That’s because AQ’s attacks are bigger and bloodier than the death squads and the odd mortar dropping unnannounced into a Sunni neighborhood.

Interesting link, that Iraq Today. I read it often because it gives an idea of where the violence is flaring up. Note that as the Brits stand down, the militias in the South are standing up.

That’s the next bit of bad news from Iraq that will only cause more support for the war to dribble away…

15

Fight4TheRight Said:
10:16 am

Drongo,

Let me propose an argument.

Al Qaeda in Iraq targets a Shia funeral, bombs it and kills 60 to 70 Shias in Baghdad. What ensues is some “retaliation” against local Sunnis. Perhaps 5 to 10 Sunnis are shot and killed the next two days by rogue Shias linked to the funeral attendees.

My argument is this. Those 5 to 10 Sunni casualties would not have occurred without the instigating act by Al Qaeda. My further argument is this. U.S. and Iraqi troops take out the Al Q operatives BEFORE the funeral bombing…that equals 0 Shia deaths at the funeral and 0 Sunni deaths after the funeral.

My contention is simple. 80% of the violence and deaths in Iraq in the past 3 months have been the result of either direct attacks by Al Qaeda or the ensuing reprisals sparked by the Al Qaeda attacks.

It’s my contention as well that you can follow the pattern of deaths as Al Qaeda moves within the country. As Al Q shifts from Anbar east to Baghdad, deaths in Anbar decrease, Baghdad goes up…as Al Q shift into Diyala, deaths and attacks go up there.

My final point. Al Q operations are all about chaos. Their chaos creates cover for Sunni insurgents and Shia militia. Remove the cover created by Al Q chaos and the will of the insurgents and militia dissipates.

16

Drongo Said:
10:16 am

“Why do you feel the need to exaggerate? ”

Because people keep forgetting the driving forces behind the parties that are in power over there. The Dawa party are as much of an islamist party as you would like, they just aren’t foaming at the mouth nutcases like Al-Q. Check out their Wiki entry if you like (obviously Wiki is just a quick reference guide);

There’s plenty there to justify murderous, and Islamist and if you don’t think they are anti-American then, well, just wait until you aren’t playing the part of free foot soldiers for them. As for corrupt, well, again, the sort of endemic corruption going on in Iraq doesn’t happen without the guys at the top helping themselves. And I’m not just talking about Al Malaki (though his recent actions against people who were doing what he said they should be doing and rooting out militias is somewhat indicitive that this leopard hasn’t changed his spots). I am talking about the whole structure behind him. There are indeed some people who seem to be genuinely working for the good of the nation but they are few and far between. And they aren’t achieving anything.

Of course, I may be wrong. The man in charge of the Jihad office in the 90s might become America’s friend…

“And maybe you missed it but the insurgents (tribal militias) and AQ have been at odds for about a year and rarely coordinate strategy or attacks any more. The Baathists still use AQ infrastructure but keep an arms length arrangement with them (according to the latest intel Iâ€™ve read).”

As far as I am aware this has been going on a bit longer than that. The problem for everyone is that all these groups are so decentralised, so today’s ally is tomorrow’s enemy. I’m not sure how often they ever ran genuine co-ordinated attacks. My guess would be that people planting IEDs in the night are mostly Iraqi nationalist insurgents (the heroes who took on convoys would all be dead by now) and the guys driving VBIEDs are mostly Al-Q wannabes with a bit of logistical support from the Baathists.

In many ways the Sunni insurgents are tolerating the chaos brought by Al-Q because it undermines the government, demonstrates that they cannot bring stability (as if the insurgents can) and kicks off the sectarian strife which in turn drives hatred of the occupier (guerrila war really isn’t very fair in that way). I maintain that once this usefulness is gone we will see how a down and dirty counter-insurgency operation run by people with good local intelligence, no moral qualms, popular support and ethnic markers goes. I suspect very badly for Al-Q. Since they started trying the Maoist tactics of intimidating the public into supporting them rather than the Sunni insurgents, they made a big mistake.

“al-Sadr or Akim are who are the true anti American Islamists and whose influence on the government has waxed and waned over time (currently waning).”

You know, that is the best thing about this surge. Sistani seems to have popped up again and Sadr seems to have gotten it into his head that since he is the coming man he just needs to sit quietly and he will be at the top of the tree. I think that he’s playing a bad hand here. The more he sits on his hands, the more his radical supporters will drift away from him and the more people will forget the Najaf uprising. If he doesn’t pull his finger out soon and sacrifice a few hundred of his troops, he might as well not have any and the popular picture of him will be of cowed bully rather than glorious Islamic fighter.

A better outcome would be hard to imagine in respect of him. Maybe a heart attack would be a bit of icing on the cake. Just please, not death by an American bullet.

That’s one of my big bits of good news at the moment. The other has been noted here and there but not at the forefront. US forces keep turning up stocks of nitric acid. This means that the insurgency has managed to burn through most of its pre-war stockpiles of explosives and is having to concoct their own. It also means that they don’t have much in the way of external logistic support. I think they’re a long way from having to really rely on it, but they are getting there.

That, along with the demonstration (theory is always good, but evidence is better) that the Sunni insurgents really will clear house when the time comes, gives some hope. But it isn’t hope that this government has a chance, just that whatever comes after it may do because if it is run by Sadr it will be a disaster.

See, I can be optimistic

17

Tim in Raleigh Said:
10:25 am

The title of this piece is a load of crap. So is all the Republican spin, hysteria, and hyperbolic hyperbole coming out about it. and they want to blame the Democrats for fear mongering and making the war political. I’d lauh myself sick if it wasn’t pathetically sad, and dangerous for the United States. Thank god they Republicans are going to lose again in ‘08

18

Drongo Said:
10:28 am

“Sorry, no link but Centcom pegs the percentage of casualties caused by AQ at 70-30. Thatâ€™s because AQâ€™s attacks are bigger and bloodier than the death squads and the odd mortar dropping unnannounced into a Sunni neighborhood.”

Yes, it is the old story, go on a mass murder spree in a shopping mall and you get a bigger body count than you do on a military base. In terms of sheer numbers though the graph that I saw (no link either, sorry) showed clearly that more attacks occured agains US forces than against anyone else.

“I read it often because it gives an idea of where the violence is flaring up.”

It is good though the comments section can sometimes descend into 9/11 conspiracies (Like Bush et al could pull that off without messing it up)

“Note that as the Brits stand down, the militias in the South are standing up.”

Not a huge surprise really, though it does give concern for the supply lines of the US forces. We’re just going to have to get used to a fundamentalist Islamic government in the South of Iraq. They’ll probably squabble amongst themselves for the next 50 years or so.

If you think public and political support for the Iraq war is bad in the US, you should see it over here. Gordon Brown, if he wants to have a chance at winning the next election, has to start getting UK forces out of Iraq within the next 6 months or so. If there is a single UK soldier in Iraq when the next election comes he is out.

19

Drongo Said:
10:40 am

“My further argument is this. U.S. and Iraqi troops take out the Al Q operatives BEFORE the funeral bombingâ€¦that equals 0 Shia deaths at the funeral and 0 Sunni deaths after the funeral.”

Well, yes, but you can’t do it. The Sunnis can do it in their region, the JAM can do it in Sadr city, the IP can do it in some of Bagdhad, the tribes can do it in other areas. The US can’t. All down to intel really.

“Itâ€™s my contention as well that you can follow the pattern of deaths as Al Qaeda moves within the country. As Al Q shifts from Anbar east to Baghdad, deaths in Anbar decrease, Baghdad goes upâ€¦as Al Q shift into Diyala, deaths and attacks go up there.”

I think that tracking Al-Q around the country is harder than it sounds. It sounds to me as if you are tracking violence and labeling it Al-Q. This has been the US official position for so long that who knows who really is and isn’t Al-Q anymore? It is getting like the “Who is a real Christian” question. Who knows? Anyone who says they are I suppose.

“My final point. Al Q operations are all about chaos. Their chaos creates cover for Sunni insurgents and Shia militia. Remove the cover created by Al Q chaos and the will of the insurgents and militia dissipates.”

I’ll bounce one right back at you. Your first two points are correct. your conclusion is backwards;

1) Al Q operations are all about chaos.

2) Their chaos creates cover for Sunni insurgents and Shia militia.

3) Remove the need for the cover created by Al Q chaos and the insurgents and militias will soon get rid of Al-Q.

The insurgenst need that cover because they are battling against the hated occupier. Remove the hated occupier and the need for the cover is gone.

I despise Al-Q as much as the next man, honestly. The old “Get ‘em together in a field and bomb them” approach appeals to me, but it isn’t how things work. I have a lot more sympathy for the Iraqi nationalist insurgents. Al-Q are killing for some lunatic vision, Iraqi nationalist insurgents are at least fighting for their hearth and home, for revenge, or for honest to goodness power. The latter can be reasoned with, bargained with, co-opted into a state. The former just need to be exterminated.

The best exterminators in the region are the locals, not us.

20

Fight4TheRight Said:
10:56 am

Drongo,
Thanks for the feedback. Good stuff.

I guess I have a question. If I am a Sunni insurgent and I am seeking the chaos for cover so I can continue my fight against the hated occupier, do I not have any sense of the repurcussions of the “occupier” leaving? In other words, am I convinced that a fight/war JUST between me and my Sunni brethren and the Shias is indeed winnable by
my side?

Am I counting on support from the Sauds to counteract the support from Iran to ther other side if the Americans pull out?

21

Rick Moran Said:
11:01 am

FFTR:

Sounds like the makings of nice little Middle East war. Sauds and maybe the Jordanians fly to the rescue of their Sunni bros with Iran egging on the Shias and then coming to THEIR rescue while Egypt figures what the hell and throws in with the Sunnis. Syria answers the call from Iran and before you know it, everyone is fighting everyone else and the Russians and Chinese clean up supplying weapons to everyone.

Some variation on that isn’t a dead certainty if we leave too quickly – but no one is arguing it isn’t more likely.

22

Ted Said:
11:24 am

“the closer we get to the 2008 election, the better the chances that any veto of the Democratâ€™s invitation to al Qaeda to initiate a bloodbath in Iraq will be overridden”

Only two problems with this: first, there’s already a bloodbath in Iraq; second, the invitation to al Qaeda to initiate it was given by the Bush administration in their failure to properly plan and conduct the occupation. See Thomas Ricks’ book Fiasco for the details of that.

23

Drongo Said:
11:25 am

“In other words, am I convinced that a fight/war JUST between me and my Sunni brethren and the Shias is indeed winnable by
my side?”

By this stage one atrocity generates another and nobody is really thinking long term I suspect.

In the past the Sunnis have been convinced that they could take down the Shias. Remember that when all this started they thought that they were actually a majority in Iraq.

I suspect that without the driving force of foreign occupation, most of the Sunni insurgents will retire to more locally based militias and a political accord between the tribes can be built. Remember that the Sunnis are primarily about not dividing Iraq up and not being under Shia dominance for ever more. With the prospect of all out war without any real support is on the table, it incentivises both sides to actually make meaningful concessions with each other. Most guerrila wars end because both sides are just fed up with them, all the real nutcases having long ago gone to their reward.

I may be being over optimistic, but the impression I get is that the Sunnis are tired of this. They won’t give up until honour is satisfied and the occupier is gone, but I don’t think they have much enthusiasm left in the populace.

As for the Shia, well, without the US forces (and US money), they have to fend for themselves and if they are going to reap the rewards of all that lovely black stuff they are going to have to come to an accord with the Sunnis.

The Iraqis are a pretty resourceful and nationalistic lot from past performance. The repair of the damage from the Gulf war, the fighting against Iran in the 80s. They’ll pick themselves up again and come back as strong as ever given a chance.

The trouble is, nobody is going to do any of that while the US is still there. The Shiites don’t have to, the Sunnis will never let it rest. As for the Kurds, well, who knows what they’ll do. Hopefully nothing.

Though I have to admit the general regional war is a very possible scenario as well. We’re all guessing here really.

One thing that I do know is that the Iraqis do not want us there, and they think that we have come there to steal their oil and permanently occupy their nation as a forward operating base. Until they are disabused of this notion they will fight us and each other as collaborators. The only way to show them that it is not true is to withdraw.

Reading sites like the aptly named Right Wing Nut House, you get the impression that only Iraqi government acceptable to Bush supporters would be one utterly submissive to American interests as defined by the Republican party and its private supporters. Thus the President and his people have pretty much stopped talking about “democracy” as a goal, but the oil bill currently moving through the Iraqi “government” remains a priority. The only thing that units the various insurgencies is the perception, which is quite accurate after all, that their country is under occupation by an imperial power that will never permit real self-government. Changes of tactics, presidential speeches, additional money, surges, and the rest are like dumping antibiotics on an infected toe. What is obviously needed is the removal of the ingrown nail, i.e. us.

It’s pretty ironic that the pathologically patriotic American rightists, with all those flags and eagles on their websites, don’t notice how our policies in Iraq do perpetual injury to the pride of its inhabitants. Apparently, “Don’t Tread on Me” doesn’t apply outside of the U.S.

25

Devil's Advocate Said:
12:34 pm

Congressional invitation to Al Qaeda to slaughter Iraqi? Boy, you have really lost it. The Iraqi are doing extremely well at slaughtering one another, Sunnis against Shias, tribal strifes among Sunnis, tribal strifes among Shiites, Kurds of one sect against another, etc… Al Qaeda’s presence is minimal in Iraq. The Iraqis are doing a fine job at demolishing their country, sending millions of their co-citizens into exile, and slaughtering one another, without Al Qaeda.

So, why is Bush so opposed to hold Maliki to benchmarks set up to curb the civil war? Why is Maliki and his Shiite-dominated (read, friendly to Iran) government allowed to hide behind our 140,000 soldiers and receive our hundreds of billions od dollars to do nothing but stall? Impose benchmarks, and enforce them! The only way Maliki is going to get off his ass is if the US kicks his ass into action.

First, it’s a total misrepresentation of the November 2006 Election to say it represented the American people’s will to cut-and-run/redeploy/surrender in Iraq. The Democrats did win some razor-thin elections for both the House and the Senate which ultimately came down to the local constituents desiring a CONSERVATIVE Democrat over a Republican. It was local politics being expressed, not some national will. In fact the election race where the Iraq War was the central issue was the Lieberman/Lamont race and we know the outcome of that race – pro-war Lieberman beat radical left cut-and-run Lamont.

Polls are generally worthless because the questions are often ambiguous or misleading and the internals show that far more Democrats than Independents and Republicans are represented how well often misinformed Americans are reflective of the media narrative of the day. So I don’t listen to polls, they rarely translate to lasting political policy on either the left or right.

So here’s my two cents. There is no way President Bush is going to prematurely withdraw American troops from Iraq, so they will still be there come 2008. The Bush-haters are in for at least another two years of wailing and gnashing their teeth. Under the U.S. Constitution, he is the only Commander in Chief, not Congress and not media polls. Troops still in Iraq by 2009 will be a wash, despite some Democrats licking their chops, and here’s why. Senators John Kerry and Carl Levin are already on record as saying some kind of American military presence (10K, 20K, 50K?) will be needed in and around Iraq to “continue fighting an al Qaeda presence” and to quell any flare up in sectarian violence. Well, in that case Senators, we may as well leave the troops in place BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW! Duh! Despite some shameless panderers like Kookcinich and other hard-left Democrats, there is no political will in Congress to cut funding to the troops. Witness the Democrats jumping through hoops to prove their “I support the troop” statements and their willingness to approve short-term funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, there won’t be any real funding cuts to stop the war, despite the Democrats and RINO Hagel talking out both sides of their mouths.

It may entirely be possible that a Democrat might become President in 2008 though I think it not very likely if a conservative Republican like Fred Thompson wins the nomination. As an independent voter myself (and I’ll put my voting record up against anyone’s here) Thompson or even Romney is far more preferable to me than the inexperienced empty suit like Barack Obama or the political opportunist Hillary Clinton and the baggage she carries. Right now these four seem to have the inside track on their respective party’s nomination. Forget the Green Party candidate, Reform Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, Constitution Party – they haven’t even a snowball’s chance.

Unless there is a spectacular threshold which is reached in Iraq whereby both the Sunni and Shia factions sue for peace and then assist the new Iraqi government and American troops in eliminating the rest of al Qaeda in Iraq and a relative peace settles over the region, we will continue having the present levels of troops in Iraq (or possibly more) when the new POTUS is sworn in on January of 2009. If it’s a Republican president, he will not pull another Nixon and sell the lie that there can be “peace with honor” and then betray the Iraqi people. But here’s the nutcracker. I predict, especially if Hillary wins, that there is no way she will substantially draw down American troops in Iraq because if all hell breaks loose and a real civil war breaks out throughout Iraq which also embroils the Kurds and further emboldens the al Qaeda network who smell a we-quit-defeatism, this will indeed be hung around the neck of a Democratic Presidency and the Democrats in Congress (whether they control Congress or not) and then we will see Vietnam unfolding before our very eyes again. And don’t think for a minute Republicans and conservatives won’t be reminding the American people what happened after a Democratically-controlled Congress betrayed the South Vietnamese and the subsequent bloodshed and flight which occurred shortly after the Communist North Vietnamese rolled into Saigon.

What exactly do you think al-Qaeda has been doing these last few months exploding car bombs and suicide bombs in Shia markets, Shia shrines, Shia funerals, etc. and then turning around and doing the same thing to the Sunnis?

They want chaos. They need chaos. They have made no secret of the fact that once we leave, they wish to turn Iraq into the Somalia of the Middle East, giving them a safe haven from which to strike western interests.

Rick,

Your first para is unarguably correct.

Your second para is correct as far as it goes, but it omits an important truth: that the chaos you describe actually suits U.S. (perceived) interests as well. Look at how the State Department Acting Counterterrorism Coordinator responded a couple of days ago to a reporter’s question about the vastly increased levels of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed by State’s annual report on global terrorism. The reporter asked if, given the increase in terrorist-related violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war in Iraq has been good for anti-terrorism efforts in general. Urbancic said yes! He said, essentially, it’s a good thing there’s so much more terrorist violence in Iraq, but that’s keeping it from going elsewhere—like here. Some right-wing bloggers (like Newbusters) have echoed this sentiment approvingly. Newsbusters actually took the MSM to task for not stressing the “good” news that Iraq is now Terrorism Central, and for not admitting that Pres. Bush’s “strategy” worked! And clearly—clearly, Rick—these commentators do NOT see the incredibly malevolent assumption at the heart of their arguments.

I’m not saying that all war supporters feel this way, but it’s a significant thread in support for the war, especially in official administration circles, and I think it has to be acknowledged. Not just for the obvious moral reasons, but also because it completely alters the logic for staying or leaving in Iraq. If being there is provokig the violence, or making it worse, or at best not allowing Iraqis to resolve the issues underlying it, then it’s in the (perceived) best interests of the warmakers to stay in Iraq. Not because our presence is keeping the violence from getting worse, but because our presence is keeping the violence from lessening.

28

Hankmeister Said:
12:54 pm

Given the ten thousand scenarios posited by the blame-America/hate-Bush crowd, somebody will be right and all we’ll hear is “I told you so” from the left. It’s like a bunch of psychics getting together and making up enough predictions that a least a couple will come true and all you’ll hear is “how right psychics are.”

Let’s not forget, other than some vague predictions about the war in Iraq being a harder plow to pull than American might think, the anti-war crowd had originally predicted that in the major combat attempt to depose Saddam’s regime would result in 10 to 20 DEAD American soldiers. All we heard for weeks leading up to the Iraq War was the tens of thousands of body bags coming back to America. It didn’t happen. We were also told all the Iraqi oilwell fires would create an environmental disaster for decades to come. It didn’t happen. Also we were told the Coalition’s attack on Saddam’s regime would ignite World War III (or IV depending on if the Cold War was WWIII) vis a vis an increasingly angered Arab street. It didn’t happen. We were also warned that destroying Saddam’s regime could take at least six months (it took only 21 days) and in the meantime this could result in several million Iraq refugees on the Syrian, Kuwaiti, and Iranian borders. It didn’t happen. And we were also told hundreds of thousands of Iraqis could die from starvation or dehydration, it didn’t happen.

I guess it’s fun to guess, I do it too, but I never take myself seriously like those on the other side of the aisle.

29

Hankmeister Said:
12:55 pm

Ooops. That’s 10 to 20 THOUSAND dead American soldiers. My bad.

30

bloodstomper Said:
2:01 pm

This is just one of the several responses to Bush’s veto, supplied by all the retired generals that Bush never listened to while they served:

“The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.”
—MAJ GEN John Batiste, retired

I think I’ll stick with Pelosi, General Batiste and that crowd. You and the Rumsfeld crowd, well, you get the gist….

31

SShiell Said:
3:22 pm

First – Hankmeister. Your comment #26 was outstanding.

Second – bloodstomper. That is the same Major General Batiste who wrote, “We have the best military in the world, hands down. We must complete what we started in Iraq, and there is no doubt in my mind that we have the military capacity to do that, provided the political will is there.”

That was the opening paragraph of an OpEd for the Washington Post written by Major General Batiste (former commander of the 1st ID at the beginning of the current Iraq War) in 2006 demanding Rumsfield’s resignation. But nowhere in this OpEd did he mention Bush. His ire was completely directed at Rumsfield.

Why? Was it because the good Major General was really disppointed with Rumsfield’s handling of the war? If that was true, show me his criticisms while he served. (Some simple links would be fine.) Or could it be the good Major General had a problem because he did not get promoted to Lieutenant General?

Now, let’s get to it and you show me something Major General Batiste said or wrote “that Bush never listened to while they served”.

Go ahead, I’ll wait.

32

Richard Bottoms Said:
4:06 pm

No need to wait, I’ll say it now. We freakin’ told you so.

We told you Bush would’t send enoguh troops.

We told you inept ideolouges more worried about abortion than foreign policy were running the occupation.

We told you to make the Army bigger, to not misuse the National Guard, and to learn the lessons of Vietnam when it came to the VA.

We told you that toppling Saddam without regard to how that benefitted Iran was not going to turn out well.

We told you shooting families at checkpoints, kicking in doors, and being disrepectful of their religion would not win hearts and minds.

We told you that phrases like fight them there so we don’t fight them here were silly, as if Al Queda couldn’t spare one or two foot soldiers to blow up a tanker truck if they really felt like it.

And we are telling you now that the surge won’t work because we can never outlast our enemies there without the political will to do so

And, most importantly that the indicator of that lack of will isn’t calls by the Democrats to set time tables. It is the unwillingness of the president to call for real sacrifice, setting this country on a war footing to achieve his stated goals.

33

Rick Moran Said:
4:20 pm

Shorter Richard:

Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah nyeah, nyeah…

NEENER! NEENER! NEENER!

For God’s sake Grow the F**k Up!

34

srv Said:
4:30 pm

I guess I have a question. If I am a Sunni insurgent and I am seeking the chaos for cover so I can continue my fight against the hated occupier, do I not have any sense of the repurcussions of the â€œoccupierâ€ leaving? In other words, am I convinced that a fight/war JUST between me and my Sunni brethren and the Shias is indeed winnable by my side?

You aren’t going to keep the Shia down by accepting elections, minority status and their American sponsor. The idea that somehow 6 Million Sunni are going to be Talibanized lesser siblings to a handful of Arab foreignors… apocolyptic and unsubstaniated claims otherwise, AQ will last about 1 week whenever they really start lording over the Ba’athists. Whatever tiffs they’ve had, this AQ-Sunni strife is probably 95% propaganda (doh – it would serve Centcom and the Ba’athists).

But as long as we’re there, AQ (or the phantom thereof) serves THEIR purpose.

Re Ricks 70-30 theory. It’s been 3 years since the British and French press stopped bothering to ask for breakdowns between native and foreign prisoners captured/held. They knew they’d never get an honest answer.

That’s not because the truth wouldn’t fit my narrative, it’s because people like Rick are just selectively curious.

35

Rick Moran Said:
4:30 pm

You also told us that the Battle of Baghdad would be a bloodbath with 10,000 American casulaties.

You also told us that there would be a million Iraqi war refugees. Yes there are refugees, but not as a direct result of the invasion.

You also told us that there would be massive starvation.

You also told us 7 different times that the Iraqi civil war was underway – going as far back as the May of 2003.

You also told us that the Iraqis would never hold successful elections – that turnout would be piss poor and thousands would die.

You also told us that there would be no Iraqi Constitution.

You also told us that al Qaeda was not in Iraq – many times.

I’d go on but I have better things to do than engage in juvenile games of “I toldjya so…” The fact is that for every “We told you’s” that came true, I can come up with 2 perhaps 3 that were so off base as to put you on planet mars.

Don’t brag about the accuracy of your predictions. You only make a fool of yourself.

36

Hankmeister Said:
5:19 pm

Rick, what “the reality is” is Democrats like Pelosi and Reid will blow a lot of smoke about their “commitment to troop withdrawals” but they really don’t want to do that given the political realities that any withdrawal accompanied by any increase in violence will ultimately be laid at their feet. Despite all their rhetorical assurances to their left-wing base, the Democrats will not withhold funding because they know have craven and partisan that would make them look.

Despite all the Dems blather about the-American-people-want-this or the American-people-want-that, what the American people don’t want is for us to precipitously withdraw from Iraq on some broadcast timetable and possibly plunge the region into further chaos and render completely meaningless those 3300 American soldiers who gave their all in this noble and necessary fight. And if possible, the majority of American people still want to take some kind of victory from this which may simply be leaving a viable government in place that can keep some measure of peace between warring Islamic factions. But keep this in mind, just as there was friction and violence between the IRA and the English throughout the 20th Century and the Basque separatists continue giving the Spanish government periodic trouble, it would be dishonest for anyone to expect for their to be zero violence in Iraq. Goodness, we can’t even control gang violence in our own country yet we consider ourselves at peace and civilized. So we have to have reasonable expectations of what “peace” might look like in something approximating a Muslim democracy – which when you think about it is an indictment of Muslim people is it not?

Which brings me to the elephant in the room. The forces of Islamofascism have concentrated their resources and their manpower in Iraq hoping to turn it into another thugocracy or stateless briarpatch that would serve as a future safe haven for jihadists. Whether we like it or not, we our fighting the war on terror/jihadism in Iraq. Whether one believes al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war or not (and it was) is irrelevant because it is in Iraq now. And we must fight it there just like we fight it in Afghanistan and just like any number of nations have been rounding up al Qaeda elements around the globe.

Now there have already been any number of people on this thread who have pointed out the tribalism of Arabs like the Iraqis as well as the sectarian hatreds of the Shia for the Sunni cannot be quelled and is in effect uncontrollable, all-is-lost! Now reasonable people shouldn’t have any trouble condemning ideologies which subvert the natural rights of man – ideologies like Nazism and Communism – so reasonable people shouldn’t have any trouble condemning radical Islamism which has been busy brainwashing generations of Arabs, Persians and Indonesians with a palpable hatred not only for infidels but now it appears to extend to “moderate Muslims” and kafirs within their own ranks. This is not a failure of Bush policy or Western Civilization – such self-flagellation is not only unfair but also counter-productive.

The left can go on hating Bush or blaming America, but the unvarnished truth is what we are actually seeing with Sunni vs Shia and Hamas vs Hezbollah IS A FAILURE OF ISLAM to keep the peace among people who embrace some very fundamental tenets that were shaped by the warrior Mohammed fourteen hundred years ago. And remember – these killing aren’t happening for national reasons, like an American Christian soldier killing to defend America or an Indian Hindu soldier killing to defend India – rather these murders and atrocities are being committed explicitly in the name of the Allah, the Koran, Islam, and the prophet Mohammed. There is a large difference which our friends on the other side of the aisle, who inexplicably lose all nuance when dealing with this issue, refuse to recognize.

Now my critics can spare me the tired cliches about Islam being a “religion of peace” because the violence that Muslims are committing upon Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, pagans, atheists and kafirs (so-called apostate Muslims) demonstrates quite the opposite. Where in the modern world are Hindus committing atrocities on Christians or vice versa? Where are Jews murdering Buddhists? Buddhists murdering Atheists? You don’t see it. Here’s a recent listing of acts of Muslim terrorism. No other religion, no other ideology in the 21st Century has that kind of track record. That has to tell a person something.

If nothing else, what Iraq has demonstrated is the willingness of not only global terrorist organizations like al Qaeda to engage in mind-numbing murder and mayhem but also individual Muslim sects seem more than willing to murder one another or any “infidel army” that dares try to change the dynamic of violence that Israel suffers through every day at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Those who lament how all is lost in Iraq because of the cycle of violence are unwittingly providing further proof that you are completely aware of this violence and yet are unwilling to assign complete blame on the perps who are actually committing 98% of the violence against innocent civilians. The left has lost the ability to be able to distinguish between conquerors and liberators and that’s what makes them so dangerous, not willing to recognize that there is a difference between killing criminals and terrorists and murdering innocent civilians because, after all, in their world it’s ALL BUSH’S FAULT or AMERICA’S FAULT! You rarely see the radical anti-war left spewing their bile and venom about the daily atrocities committed by Muslim fundamentalists around the world and particularly in Iraq except for some obligatory condemnation of a particularly heinous beheading like what happened to Danny Pearl or David Berg.

And this is what troubles me greatly in trying to “compromise” with the anti-war crowd. I believe at some point there has to be CONSENSUS, not compromise, but I really don’t see how those of us who see the wolf at the door and have supported the War on Terror can “compromise” with a people who steadfastly refuse to see the difference between murdering innocent people and killing evildoers … or the killing committed by conquerors and the killing engaged in by liberators trying to protect the innocent who are often used as human shields by terrorists. C’mon, Bush equals Hitler? 9/11 was an inside job? No War For Oil? All killing is the same? How do you “compromise” with people like that?

37

Hankmeister Said:
5:40 pm

Say, Richard Bottoms, maybe you can answer this question. Why haven’t terrorists engaged in more atrocities here in America? I’m curious why they haven’t exploded fuel trucks and such. It’s certainly within their capabilities Allah knows that we infidels deserve it, right? Even George Tenet recently and publicly mused why it was America hasn’t turned into another Israel. I mean has al Qaeda gone soft? Maybe its the Islamofascists’ great love for the anti-war progressives in this country, eh?

I have to admit, I don’t have a good answer either – why in the last five and half years we haven’t had another 9/11 – though there have certainly been individual cases of jihadism committed explicitly in the name of Islam and local law enforcement and the FBI have refused to label them as such. I guess the SOP is unless a budding jihadist is a card carry member of al Qaeda, law enforcement doesn’t consider them terrorists. But since you seem to know everything, maybe you can enlighten the rest of us as to why our avowed enemy hasn’t struck our homeland again in any meaningful way. Certainly you can’t think they mean us no harm except for the fact our infidel armies are soiling their holy lands.

38

srv Said:
5:59 pm

You also told us 7 different times that the Iraqi civil war was underway â€“ going as far back as the May of 2003.

You know, Rick, you people keep shooting yourself in the foot besides yourselves. You might bother to actually read what your linking too. Your representation is at least ignorant, or grossly misleading. For example, the Slate link is an entire article on constructing Civil Societies, and you’ve taken editors use of “War” out of context.

You didn’t even bother to read the subtitle in bold:

“Building civil society in Iraq is even more important than building democracy. Here are six new ways to do it.”

You people keep rationalizing all of this was a complete surprise to you, and would have worked if it just weren’t for 2006, and we’ll keep b* slapping you back to reality.

39

SShiell Said:
5:59 pm

Here’s and example of camments made by the good Major General John Batiste which is an example of criticisms that Bush “never listened to while they served”. From a report dated 15 November 2004:

Despite a rise in the number of terrorist attacks, and contrary to the perception created by media reports that focus almost exclusively on bad news, the commanders told Abizaid that progress is being made in their areas of operation and they were confident that the outlook for Iraq’s future is generally good.

“I’m confident because we’ve got some great Iraqi security forces. We’ve got great Iraqis who are patriots, committed to a free and democratic Iraq,” said Maj. Gen. John Batiste, commander of the 1st Infantry Division. “Our recent experience in places like Samarra is that these units, well-led and well- equipped, did a very good job. I expect them to continue to do so.”

The 1st Infantry Division is headquartered in Tikrit, about 90 miles north of Baghdad. The division is responsible for helping to promote stability in various other cities in northern Iraq, including Kirkuk, Baqubah, Balad, Bayji and Sulaymaniyah.

Batiste noted that though the number of attacks has “spiked” lately, they have actually resulted in a relatively smaller percentage of fatal casualties per attack. He said the increase in the number of attacks in recent weeks is the work of desperate insurgents.

“The insurgents are going to try to get back in full what they used to own,” Batiste said. “Our job is, with the Iraqi security forces, to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

Batiste said more people in the U.S. would also feel optimistic about the situation in Iraq if they knew about “the work we’re doing with security and governance and in improving the quality of life and the infrastructure of this country.”

Now that sounds like a man who is giving Bush what for in his criticism of the war. Boy, how could someone like Bush or even Rumsfield stand up to such scathing remarks as that.

Believe it or not, Richard Bottoms, your comments, for what they are worth, mean more to me than those from a man who wouldn’t and didn’t speak up “while they served” and is now trying to ingratiate himself with the political powers of today.

40

Nikolay Said:
6:07 pm

So, basically, Bush’s logic in dealing with Maliki is this: “you better stop stop screwing everything, otherwise I will have to…
say this again!
and if this doesn’t help,
I will say this again!
And I will keep on saying this again and again, because, my dear jihadi friend, we both know that to actually try to push you into doing anything will mean that AQ wins! And we can’t have that!”

That’s just so very smart to show Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim and the rest of the jihadi-friends crowd that you’ll never abandon them in this “central fight in the war on terror”.

41

Nikolay Said:
6:18 pm

I believe at some point there has to be CONSENSUS, not compromise, but I really donâ€™t see how those of us who see the wolf at the door and have supported the War on Terror can â€œcompromiseâ€ with a people who steadfastly refuse to see the difference between murdering innocent people and killing evildoers â€¦

Anyone who talks seriously about “Democratically elected Iraqi government” doesn’t see the wolf.
The pacifists will always be with you, they don’t make any real difference, but the real conflict about Iraq is between the people that refuse to recognize radical Islamists when they see them (Bush and GOP) and those that don’t (Democrats).

42

Fight4TheRight Said:
6:46 pm

Hankmeister,

Your posting #26 is dead on. Thank you for an awesome expression of truth there.

I then viewed Richard’s and it became obvious that when “reason” and “clarity of thought” were being handing out, Richard was more than likely telling someone….”We told you the Earth was flat!”

43

Hankmeister Said:
7:35 pm

If anyone is interested, there is a new site up called 429Truth.com. It attempts to explain how the 4/29/07 fuel tanker accident was no accident but a Bu$Hitler/Cheney/CIA/Halliburton attempt to discredit the 9/11 Truthers. As any open-minded anti-war progressive will tell you in all sincerity, 9/11 was an inside job because the Twin Towers were wired for demolition. And we also know, because the expert metallurgist Rosie O’Donnell has told us, an open “fire can’t melt steel.” It’s a hoot! The comment threads are priceless. Figure it out yourselves.

44

Richard Bottoms Said:
8:14 pm

>For Godâ€™s sake Grow the F**k Up!

So the president HAS called for young people to join the armed forces for the sake of war, called for higher taxes on oil, and given that war footing speech? What a fool I’ve been. Surely we Democrats are doomed at the polls next year.

45

Joe Helgerson Said:
8:57 pm

Hankmeister has too much hatred for democrats for me to even read his rants. I’m ready to listen th either side if they have a sensible plan for Iraq. I still think Bush is a fool, I’ve read “Fiasco” by Thomas Ricks, it blew me away.Rick, my point is how can Iraq become a sovereign nation with 170,000 US troops there? The troops skewer any form of an independent Iraq. Start drawing dowm American forces, hopefully this will force the Iraqis to stand up. Otherwise it’ll turn into a permanent occupation.

46

grognard Said:
10:42 pm

Some observations

Lincoln would not have been re-elected if he did not produce some victories before the election. If we were still in North Africa and the edge of the Pacific after four years of war Roosevelt would not have been elected again. The Kaiser was overthrown by a war weary Germany. Constant warfare with few results puts you out of office. Rick is right, this will not go on indefinitely, right or wrong or deluded or farsighted or whatever reason you want to use there is no longer the political will to continue. That is a basic fact the Republican party has to contend with.

The Democrats on the other hand are ignoring the consequences of withdrawal, somehow wishfully thinking that once we are gone somehow everything will magically turn out OK, or at least hoping the resulting chaos will some how not come back on us. Just pulling out means millions of deaths and a regional war, the left canâ€™t be concerned about Africa but turn their back Iraq and have any intellectual consistency.

So what to do? In the Kurdish territories the national flag is not shown, and they are not interested in getting involved in the Sunni/Shiite civil war. Sunnis, many of them Baâ€™athists, have made it clear they donâ€™t want to live under a Shiite government. There have been enough deaths that I donâ€™t see the possibility of reconciliation. There are no good choices here, only the lesser of many evils choices. A Federal system where the major groups can be ruled, and policed by, their own people is about the only solution I can see. Separate the groups, even pay people to relocate, and let them deal with the factions within their own sects and hopefully be so involved internally they leave each other alone. The discovery of oil in Anbar gives each group access to the precious juice and eliminates the problem of revenue sharing.

But what about AQ? In Anbar the Anbar Salvation Council has taken on AQ, and I see that happening elsewhere as AQ either wears out itâ€™s welcome or is seen as outsiders that are meddling in local affairs. With the US gone there would be no reason for them to be there and most of the Sunnis have no desire to live under their version of Islam.

A loose Federation is not a perfect solution by far. There are many justifiable criticisms, for example what happens to the Kurds should PPK raids trigger a Turkish response, but by separating people at least some of the reasons for conflict go away. The internal divisions in the three groups begin to take precedence, and even the day to day problems of civil administration becomes more important than continued fighting.

It is time to stop playing the blame game and trying to determine who did what to who first, the situation is what it is and it is time to offer solutions. You may now feel free to comment and call me a moron , imbecile or what ever.

47

Drongo Said:
1:27 am

“We were also warned that destroying Saddamâ€™s regime could take at least six months (it took only 21 days) and in the meantime this could result in several million Iraq refugees on the Syrian, Kuwaiti, and Iranian borders. It didnâ€™t happen. And we were also told hundreds of thousands of Iraqis could die from starvation or dehydration, it didnâ€™t happen.”

I didn’t make any predictions regarding the war beyond “It is going to be a bad day to be a Republican guard” and a rather childish memory of the reasons why we didn’t invade Iraq after the Gulf War. They still held.

“”And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?

And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

All of a sudden you’ve got a battle you’re fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques,

Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.””

Dick Cheney 1992. He was right then…

However it is strange that you claim millions fo refugees and mass shortages of food and potable water as failed predictions.

48

Drongo Said:
1:52 am

“Now there have already been any number of people on this thread who have pointed out the tribalism of Arabs like the Iraqis as well as the sectarian hatreds of the Shia for the Sunni cannot be quelled and is in effect uncontrollable, all-is-lost!”

Not me. I think they can reach an accord as they have in the past once the occupation forces have left. Not instantly and not perfectly but certainly not until then.

“You rarely see the radical anti-war left spewing their bile and venom about the daily atrocities committed by Muslim fundamentalists around the world and particularly in Iraq except for some obligatory condemnation of a particularly heinous beheading like what happened to Danny Pearl or David Berg.”

Not that I’m radical left, but what’s the point? Once you’ve made it clear that you don’t think that blowing up busses full of children is acceptable, and that those who perpetrate these acts are evil, what are you supposed to say?

They aren’t going to listen to us anyway. On the other hand, in a democracy we might actually have a chance at changing the war-happy attitudes that we have at home.

“Câ€™mon, Bush equals Hitler? 9/11 was an inside job? No War For Oil? All killing is the same?”

1) No he isn’t, but he’s certainly an authoritarian power grabber. I hope you like it when a Dem president wields all these surveillance, detention without trial, excecutive secrecy, unitary executive powers. He’s hardly enhanced American democracy has he?

2) Yeah, well, conspiracies are as they do.

3) No, obviously oil had nothing to do with this war. Obviously. Our leaders were surprised to find ll this black stuff, that is vital to national security and while is being increasingly bought up by rival great powers, under their feet when they liberated the Iraqi people. To my mind saying “This war wasn’t about oil” makes about as much sense as saying “9/11 was an inside job”. It just contradicts blatantly obvious reality.

4) All killing is the same? It feels that way when it is your family being killed which is why it doesn’t matter whether the civvy was killed as part of a murder campaign or by indifference. It all end up being blamed on the occupation. Yes, it is unfair but it is how it works.

49

Richard Bottoms Said:
6:09 am

But since you seem to know everything, maybe you can enlighten the rest of us as to why our avowed enemy hasnâ€™t struck our homeland again in any meaningful way.

I’m guessing they made a poltical calculation that it is better to have us in Iraq with world opinion against the US than to drum up the type of sympathy and national unity that existed after 9/11.

Why have the entire country howling for blood again when their objectives of drawing us further into a generational fight seems to be working?

And besides, when it comes to barrrom boasts, you could probably coast of the 9/11 attacks for quite sometime before anyone tops you.

A landmark erased, 3,000 dead, trillions in economic damage, plus the US Army bogged down in two wars, 3500 KIA, 24,000 wounded, and they just have to wait out the corrupt Iraqi government’s collapse on its own.

Why would they have to attack us again?

50

Richard Bottoms Said:
6:15 am

BTW, what should really scare you isn’t the scale of the next attack.

It’s their discipline in NOT having attacked us yet.

51

mannning Said:
1:02 pm

‘Though I have to admit the general regional war is a very possible scenario as well. Weâ€™re all guessing here really”—Drango

An understatement of classic proportions! If we are guessing, then I will take the current situation, where we are running the Insurgents out of ammo, our nation is not being attacked directly, and there is some hope of controlling Iraq, and putting Iran on notice that we aren’t far away with a goodly force and airbases. Withdraw and it is indeed anyone’s guess as to the ultimate outcome. Reeinforce our troops and it makes things a lot more difficult for the insurgents all around. Further, I like the idea of having a strong force next to Syria, just in case they get ambitious in the near term. I also like the idea of putting it to the Iraqi by saying you can have your government and your oil, but only if you comply fully with our agreements. Otherwise we will indeed turn things around into a full occupation and seize the oil fields.

Benevolence does not work with Islamists, but force does. I agree that the current Islamist government is playing a friendly charade with us, just waiting till they can gain sufficient power to throw us out. We should disabuse them of this notion by declaring that we will be in Iraq until we deem it fit for us to leave, so you have the choice of insurrection or full cooperation; take your pick. We put a delay in their sovereignty for our purposes, not theirs.

The whole strategic idea is to split the ME Islamic nations geographically, isolate Iran, and kill as many Islamofascists as show up for the war—over there—and with Iraqi help. The terrorists should have to battle their way into Iraq, not stream through the porous borders with Syria and Iran. As someone said, insurgents get tired of war, their base dwindles, and their opposition grows, given enough time. We need a few years with the illusion strongly built that we can stay as long as necessary.

Obviously, the nation needs to get behind this push, or it will not succeed. We, as a people, have not been put to the question properly, but I believe it could happen, if not right now, then after the 2008 elections. The people do not know what the real stakes are in Iraq, nor do they remember the commitments we have made to the Iraqi.

Perhaps it is true that only one of two things could mobilize the nation behind the war: 1) another attack of serious proportions in the US; or an Iranian adventure that becomes a cause for war, like their attempt to capture some of our troops once more.

There is a third possibility, which has many ramifications. We suddenly attack Iran’s air defenses and communications/command and control points, and then their nuclear facilities from the air. This has been expected by some, including me, in early 2008. The “Surge” fits that pattern closely, as more and more troops are eased into Iraq under that rubric, not only to further subdue Iraq, to cover for the loss of Brits in Basra, but also to face Iran with significant additional forces.

Given that Iran retaliates, we are launched into yet another, much larger, phase of the ME war. We then must look to our backs in Iraq!

That is one reason for not executing this attack until 08. We need the time to build up our forces, both at home and in Iraq, with stocks of weapons, vehicles, and the training of new troops. There might be an urgent campaign this Summer/Fall to prepare the public for this new phase of the war, as well as a call for mobilization of reserves and a draft.

The other reason to wait might be to give the opposition in Iran a year or so to do something significant.

This would present the new President, from whichever party, with an on-going war, but after major damage to the Iranian’s nuclear capability has been accomplished. The Bush saga ends there.